HEARING SCREENING PROTOCOL COMPARISON FOR PRESCHOOLERS, TODDLERS, AND INFANTS

Transcription

1 HEARING SCREENING PROTOCOL COMPARISON FOR PRESCHOOLERS, TODDLERS, AND INFANTS Kailey A. Symes, Student Researcher, Honors Program, University of Wyoming Mary Jo Cooley Hidecker, PhD, CCC-A/SLP, University of Wyoming Nancy Pajak, CCC-A, Wyoming EHDI

2 Introduction What are hearing screenings? Why are they important? What are hearing screening tools?

3 Introduction Purpose of hearing screenings: Identify individuals who are likely to have a hearing loss Refer to an audiologist for further diagnostic testing

4 Introduction Hearing screening importance: Early identification and intervention Auditory, speech, language, and socioemotional development (Eiserman, Shisler, Foust, Buhrmann, Winston, & White, 2008)

5 Introduction Unmanaged hearing loss: Causes deficits in key developmental processes Speech and/or language disorders, feelings of isolation, academic difficulties (Busacco, 2010)

6 Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) Programs Established in every state/territory in US Newborn hearing screenings Identify hearing loss at birth What about progressive and acquired hearing loss? (White, 2008)

7 Progressive and Acquired Hearing Loss 20% of childhood hearing loss Increases need for hearing screenings later in childhood (Georgalas, Xenellis, Davilis, Tzangaroulakis, & Ferekidis, 2008)

8 Importance of hearing screening Identify children with hearing loss early to improve developmental outcomes Sensitivity and specificity Referral to audiologist (Smiley, Shapley, Eckl, & Nicholson, 2012)

9 Hearing screening tools Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) Otoscopy Immittance testing Pure-tone screening

10 Purpose of this research Compare two hearing screening protocols Protocol #1: TEOAEs Protocol #2: TEOAEs, otoscopy, immittance testing, and pure-tone screening

11 Methods Secondary data analysis: EHDI program Hearing screening forms

12 Methods Participants 709 infant, toddler, and preschool children Albany County, Wyoming

13 Methods Procedures: De-identified forms Computerized using dual data entry procedure Discrepancy resolution

14 Analysis SPSS 22 (2013) Descriptive statistics and frequency data 2 x 2 contingency table Pearson chi-square

15 Results Figure 1. Crosstabulation of screening protocols 88% passed both screening protocols 11% failed both screening protocols Overall screening TEOAE only Pass Fail Total Pass Fail Total % passed TEOAE and failed screening battery 0% passed screening battery and failed TEOAE

16 Results Pearson Chi-square [χ 2 (1, N=853) =814.6; p=.0005)] No statistically significant difference between the two hearing screening protocols

17 Discussion TEOAEs Time-effective screening measure compared to complete screening battery

18 Discussion Influencing factors: Background noise, middle ear pathology Limiting factors: Analysis of written records Geography and training of screeners

19 Discussion Future research Children who were unable to be screened Ages of children receiving TEOAEs versus pure-tones Examining rescreens and medical followups

20 Conclusion Hearing screening protocols crucial for identification and intervention of hearing loss in children TEOAEs may be an effective hearing screening protocol compared to complete screening battery More research is needed (Eiserman et al., 2008)

21 References Busacco, D. (2010). Audiologic interpretation across the lifespan. Boston: Pearson. Eiserman, W. D., Shisler, L., Foust, T., Buhrmann, J., Winston, R., & White, K. (2008). Updating hearing screening practices in early childhood settings. Infants & Young Children, 21, Georgalas, C., Xenellis, J., Davilis, D., Tzangaroulakis, A., & Ferekidis, E. (2008). Screening for hearing loss and middle-ear effusion in school-age children, using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions: A feasibility study. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 122(12), IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Smiley, D. F., Shapley, K., Eckl, D., & Nicholson, N. (2012). Comparison of pure-tone and distortion product otoacoustic emission screenings in school-aged children. Journal of Educational Audiology, White, K. R., & Muñoz, K. (2008). Screening. Semin Hear, 29(02), doi: /s